I think there may also be some risk these things might decay into something bad for you. Probably not with asprin, tylenol etc as that would have come to light by now.
I agree though there is no reason not use expired household pain killers of those types. The risk is your headache does not go away and you have wait 3 hours before you can try some other pills. Not exactly life threatening.
There needs to be basically one rule, that if Mom is covered whoever is insuring mom has to allow a policy to originate for any infant born. Additionally policies need to be consider to be owned by the insured regardless of who is paying, that is if you insure little Timmy, the policy is Timmy's and if he does get sick while covered the insurer must allow Timmy to simply take over paying and continue the policy when Timmy becomes an adult.
Now we are compassionate society and we are not going to let people without coverage die. Okay I agree so how do you incentivize people to buy insurance if they know they will be covered anyway. You make it the same sort of asset protection proposition that other types of insurance are such as homeowners. Everyone can get medicaid even if they have a preexisting condition but its means tested, so you will only qualify after you have exhausted your personal assets, and demonstrated your income cannot fund your medical care. Think of it like they way we offer indigent criminals public defenders. If people want to protect their present and future assets they would buy insurance. If they don't the public will care for them but only after great personal loss.
Seriously, this is why we have such serious problems in this country today! You are laying a problem at the hands of capitalism, which is actually entirely created by government! Let me guess you solution is going to be more regulations too.
Lets break this day.
FDA (government) say to drug makers you need to set expiration dates. They say okay well we know they will be good for three years our packaging technology and stabilizers are at least that good. Safe bet for us, because...
FDA (government) tells Hospitals/pharmacies/individuals they must toss out any expired drugs. So the drug makers don't need to worry about anyone actually determining these things can be used long past the manufacture guarantee, or worse that one of their competitors has better packaging / a more stable drug that they might choose for its long shelf life.
Still more context government F'ed over the market place by creating the perverse nonsense of employers buying you health insurance. When they created complex rules around taxable income. Think about this, does your employer offer you auto insurance as a benefit, or a homeowners/renters policy, NO! literally no employees do that, why is that? Because health insurance got setup as a way for company to pay people more without incurring additional employment or income taxes. Similar tax breaks don't exist for other kinds of insurance so you don't seem them as part of employment compensation packages. 45 years later Democrats come along and offer this terrible sob story about how so many people lose coverage because the lose or change a jobs, and government has to do something about; a problem created entirely by bad government policy in the first place.
So half the population does not really feel what they are paying for insurance because half of it is the employer contribution and they don't ever have to directly write those checks. Than insurers actually pay their medical bills so they don't feel writing those checks either. Consequence 80% of the participants in medical care don't have any clear perspective or care about what things actually cost! So nobody bothers to figure out if we are tossing good drugs into the landfill. All thanks to big government interference in the market place!
Seriously there is a STUPID simple fix to the healthcare problems we are facing! 1) Repeal Obamacare. 2) Ensure medicaid is available and adequately funded to help the people who really are below the poverty line and can't afford any kind of even catastrophic coverage. 3) Withdraw the corporate tax incentives to offer medical coverage, this will mean all the HR time associated with that is pure overhead and will discourage them from doing so. 3a) Allow individuals to deduct medical coverage from income taxes but ONLY if they pay them directly, not if they are done as payroll deduction, this make employees not want corporate heal benefits. Now this is actually government interference but its to counter decades of expectations and should have an expiration date, maybe ten years, after which you would be allow to deduct anything done as a payroll deduction as well. 4) Allow people to choose "inferior" care, relax rules that require physicians to perform certain procedures and issue a range of prescriptions, so patients can choose facilities where nurse practitioners and other less expensive resources can do these. 5) Reduce regulations on drugs and drug manufacture, not eliminate mind you just roll back the number of inspections, identifying the most expensive regulations to comply with that are offering the least benefit in terms of safety. Torts will take care of the rest.
Let the market work. This will result in enough price consciousness to actually lower prices, and creates opportunities to lower real costs. A strong individual insurance market would reemerge.
If those starry eyed clientele can't handle the responsibilities of a loan they sign up for then they can't handle the responsibilities of voting either.
Totally agree being allowed to vote should require you prove you a net tax payer, in the relevant jurisdiction.
Well there should not be many defaults, since student loans are not secured against collateral they have been made legally much harder to discharge in bankruptcy and related proceedings/actions.
I still say the problem is student loans are even a thing. College costs so much because the have a starry eyed clientele that is by and large unfamiliar with the amount of money involved. Many may have never even had a sum on the same order of magnitude their total debt will be when they finish school if they take the loan. A large portion have never even used credit before, other than borrowing $20 from mom!
Its a very abstract concept to them. They can't rationally judge if its better to pay a little less at South Harmon Institute of Technology, or go Harmon with its nicer dormitories, better food, and amazing sports complex. The market place is completely distorted by all the easy loan money running around.
If we stopped doing federal loans, and removed the bankruptcy protections, these collateralized loans would mostly disappear form the market place. Two things would happen, collage would get cheaper, and focus on core objectives. There is no point in having a fancy school students can't afford to attend. Many people would probably delay college until they had something to borrow against. I suspect this might also have a positive effect in terms of people having a better idea of what they want out of college.
Because they made an agreement! Even if we decided to make all public colleges free tomorrow it would not change the obligation of people with existing loans to pay them!
They wanted to borrow money to get something they wanted at the time and agreed to pay it back with interest. They were lent the money. They need to repay the money.
nderstand the difference between security and authenticity.
Congratulations you have proven beyond any doubt you have no idea what security means! I can now ignore you stupid prattling on Slashdot going forward.
C-I-A Confidentiality, Integrity, Authenticity. You need all three!
LE provides exactly no better authentication than self signed certs. Its worthless from a security standpoint, unless you are swapping thumbprints or something out of band to verify the certs, oh wait you could do that with self signed certs too, and with far less attack surface than running one of the LE cert bots.
I am not relying on the little lock for authenticity, I can verify the subject but I would suggest a responsible CA would do a little diligence and not actively support, which is what LE is doing, spammers and fraudsters. I can assure you 99% of internet users if they don't get some certificate error, don't carefully check the URL bar (which half the browsers don't even show anymore) character by character and they never ever ever actually look at the certificate content directly.
Sorry LE is providing a huge disservice to everyone. I'd say it ought to be shuttered, but its a free country.
No its not a messed up set of values. Helping others is good. Everyone should be welcomed and encouraged to so with their own time and resources.
When government does it, government does not help anyone, they compel others to do it. Either by surrendering their wealth via taxation or by being told what they must do with their stuff, like you have let half your parking spaces go unused most of the time in case someone handicapped shows up.
While some amount of government is needed so we can all live together in a society, its should be minimal and it should avoid making people do things as much as possible.
Don't see why it is good when private business does it, but bad when governments do it.
Because when private business do it they do it for their own reasons. Maybe its because they actually think it will maximize profits, maybe its done out of charity. The fact that it is their own reasons is the important part. A private business or individual should have to the right to do whatever they want with their property, which includes the business itself to run however they like. This is very very basic principle of freedom, the cornerstone of which is private property and the owner's right to choose!
When government mandates something like handicap accessibility they are telling someone under threat of force what they must do either personally or how they may dispose their property. The idea that someone can tell you what you must do with your time and your things is the core principle of something else, slavery!
I am not praising or berating. In the case of Amazon, its simply a business decision.
They have concluded that rather than earn a flat margin on every sale passing the shipping costs directly, or being able to offer some customers the absolute rock bottom price by excluding a larger range of more costly delivery locations, they will make more money on the whole.
One reason I pointed out was the value in universality to their clients. I am sure there are other factors as well. Maybe its easy to manage the pricing model, checkout and billing processes with few inputs and that lowers costs. I don't know.
I don't think for a second its done out of some misguided sense of altruism. They do it because they think this will make them the most money, maybe its even a long term strategy to drive out competitors as many suggest. One thing is sure, nobody is forcing Amazon to offer anyone access to Prime.
Handicapped services on the other hand are almost always done at some sort of mandate. Which makes the situation completely different.
The 'average' cost of shipping is baked into the price. Obviously it costs someone be it Amazon or possible the parcel service if Amazon has negotiated some kind of flat rate, to deliver items to harder to reach places.
UPS and FexEx deliver to my home out in the county because they know in aggregate the business is more valuable when they can say to senders we can pretty much deliver anything anywhere. There is simply know way though that it isn't cheaper to deliver locations one of the 'cities' near by. These are places right off the interstates, and they can probably do a lot more delivery's per mile on the smaller trucks they bring to the curb, where the addresses are not split up by acres of farmland or forest.
Amazon has it worked out, they make $X margin deriving to Bob in town, they loose $Y margin delivering to me, X-Y=$W which is still positive and around the margin they seek over all. So yes in effect people in denser areas are probably subsidizing people in less dense areas. Now the question for Amazon is that a positive net effect for their business? Its not a simple as being able to charge the lowest rate for product + delivery.
A prime user might be annoyed if when they go to order a birthday gift for a friend they are suddenly confronted with not being able to deliver to that location, or asked to pay an extra fee. Universality probably adds to the perception of value. I am sure there are also other considerations.
That isn't the reality most places though. You have to be much much more remote to be that 'closed' of a system. There are some places like that, probably in Alaska and some others out west on the Continental US.
My experience with rural life is Appalachia. Many years ago we still had general stores I am talking the late 90's here. Actually we still do but they are shells of their former selves where they do exist. You could ask the proprietor to order just about anything you need and they had a supplier who could get it for you.
Than two things happened. E-Commerce and the massive expansion of Walmart. That pretty much left the general stores, and local hardware stores, independent lumber yards etc, stocking convince items and things people tend to suddenly need a lot of in hurry like wall studs.
There was no way the little mom and pops could staff up with people actually capable of contacting suppliers and placing special orders etc. That actually tended to require some thinking and intelligence and working with the custom. Well I can get you those 15 widgets or I can order a case of 25 for about the same price. Maybe you offer the customer the 25, for just a little more to see if they want them. Maybe you make a judgement call you can order the case and sell the other 10 and give the guy a beak. Point is you can't just stick some local teenage behind the counter to do that with no supervision. So they quit doing that stuff, and laid people off.
So for a time if Walmart did not have it, you got in the car and drove a couple hours to the nearest city. That might be a place like Charleston, Beckly, Hunting, Lexington, Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, etc. It took time but it was never really like you could not put your hands on stuff you needed.
The next cycle was gas go super expense; that posed a real problem, but by then Amazon and others various free shipping schemes were a thing.
Now gas is cheap again. So that will get people thru the next cycle.
I don't need a third party CA to have an encrypted connection. If my interest is only in ensuring preventing eavesdropping by parties not associated with me or the remote, we can do any number of things; self signed certs being the most obvious.
That situation is rare. Usually anything conversation that requires privacy also requires authenticity. If I am telling secrets I need to know and trust the recipient or at least know the recipient has some interest in keeping my secrets. An eCommerce site as rule wants to protect my CC number because they might loose the ability to process cards if they fail to do so, or lose business in general.
If I don't know that site is real though because some horse shit CA like Let'sEncrpt is happy to issue a cert for ExamplAutoparts.com when ExampleAutoparts.com is a major e-tailer, and some asshole can clone the site and host it at ExamplAutoparts.com that sucks. With DV certs and especially with fully robotic signing like LE does that is possible. Actually they are know to have issued thousands of paypal typo squats. At least with EV certs some validation that you are a sort of legitimate operator with at least a real address and phone number means I have someone to sue.
Than lets consider that LE does not even really do DV in most cases, they only check you control the server.... Which is more likely to be compromised, A third party DNS provider or any given wanna be admins VPS server somewhere.... An attacker could rather quietly do the needful to obtain an LE certificate from a compromised site and remove all the evidence before anyone notices. That is at least a little harder with the DV that more traditional CAs usually do.
Mark is about as lefty as they come. He is arguing for UBS from heaves sake.
Now cynically I think this is about enriching himself. Force the middle calls tax payer to hand even more money to poor so they can misuse it, and spend it on Mark's crappy website.
I personally have big problems with LE and what they are doing, but that is for another discussion.
LE isn't the first CA to handout free DV certs, they are the first to have the right backers to make the effort happen and showed up at the right time in the wake of the Snowden revelations. They are enjoying some success (for now).
The thing is most people have no idea what EV vs DV means, if they don't get an error they are perfectly happy, some are still looking for the "little lock" in the corner. For most organizations there is no value proposition in something better than an LE cert. So you are probably right the bottom is about to fall out of the "certificate market".
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
bullshit its been grammatical norm to use 'he' when the gender is unknown for centuries. There is no question of accuracy its a question of knowing the definition. 'They' is usually plural and is therefore just as ambiguous although in a different when you start using it to possibly refer to individuals.
English does not have a lot of hard and fast rules. There is no official governing body. Use 'they' if you want but don't force you special snowflake bullshit on the rest of us and don't lie about it being somehow more correct. The fact is its no more and no less correct, because there is no correct. There is only did you recipient understand your message correctly and with minimal processing effort.
No but only because their memory are so sort they don't remember the last time the media collectively conspired to discredit the POTUS. They are all to busy now getting worked up over second hand accounts of e-mails provided by anonymous sources.
No its why you don't use doc/docx as a storage format. Word is probably the best word processor out there when it comes to document production (provided you don't require strict type setting or page layout, where you would use tools like Tex and Quark depending on the objectives).
What you probably should do is write most of your documents/reports/letters/etc in Word as its probably the fastest easiest way to compose something that looks nice enough.
When you have something that is ready to call a final draft, you save it in a format that will include all the fonts and specify an exact layout like postscript/pdf, either by exporting or 'printing to it.' That way you get an unchanging document in a widely understood format for archive/distribution.
The problem with that is people only look at the summaries than. How often do people read the linked articles here. Its hard to summarize and article that does not exist though. You have to do the research sometime.
The real problem is the media companies are their own worst enemy. I am not sure what the answer is, but the problem is the fist news organization to do the needful and fully paywall will die. People will flock to the guys that are still 'free' and they will get all the readership. They might survive on ad revenues for a while long since they will be getting greater page views.
The guys that pay wall will see the revenue dry up. Only when the competition is gone will the free guys close the barn door and paywall. At which point some new organization can probably enter the market. As far as the current crop of big news organizations go, the reality is probably "There can be only one" survivor of the transition away from free online content.
Wrong they should be paid for it if there is a market for it. If nobody wants a paper, than they should NOT be paid for it. If they don't want their content harvested they should put it behind a pay wall or not put it online at all. If the paywall means Google does not index them and put them near the top of the search ratings to friggin bad.
Ultimately Google will be hurt if they don't index the content and return the results people want. On the other hand maybe it will turn out the people don't care about reporting in the form of long form articles if that is the case the newspapers loose.
I would wager Google and Facebook have a bigger problem if they don't have those content sources than the papers have. If people want news they know where to look! Everyone has heard of the WaPo, Times, WJS, and their local Tribute, etc. If they can't get their news online or can't see any more than the headline without crossing the pay wall they will come crawling back most likely.
Arguably, the newspapers are more monopolies than the tech companies. If you want major newspaper that covers Washington, and national news you have the WaPO to choose from, the NYT isn't really a substitute.
On the other hand if you don't like Google, there is Bing, and its an almost perfectly like substitute. If you don't like facebook there are a number of other conversation platforms like Disqus. While not perfect replacements they are social media alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there may also be some risk these things might decay into something bad for you. Probably not with asprin, tylenol etc as that would have come to light by now.
I agree though there is no reason not use expired household pain killers of those types. The risk is your headache does not go away and you have wait 3 hours before you can try some other pills. Not exactly life threatening.
Pre-existing conditions are a simple problem to.
There needs to be basically one rule, that if Mom is covered whoever is insuring mom has to allow a policy to originate for any infant born. Additionally policies need to be consider to be owned by the insured regardless of who is paying, that is if you insure little Timmy, the policy is Timmy's and if he does get sick while covered the insurer must allow Timmy to simply take over paying and continue the policy when Timmy becomes an adult.
Now we are compassionate society and we are not going to let people without coverage die. Okay I agree so how do you incentivize people to buy insurance if they know they will be covered anyway. You make it the same sort of asset protection proposition that other types of insurance are such as homeowners. Everyone can get medicaid even if they have a preexisting condition but its means tested, so you will only qualify after you have exhausted your personal assets, and demonstrated your income cannot fund your medical care. Think of it like they way we offer indigent criminals public defenders. If people want to protect their present and future assets they would buy insurance. If they don't the public will care for them but only after great personal loss.
Seriously, this is why we have such serious problems in this country today! You are laying a problem at the hands of capitalism, which is actually entirely created by government! Let me guess you solution is going to be more regulations too.
Lets break this day.
FDA (government) say to drug makers you need to set expiration dates. They say okay well we know they will be good for three years our packaging technology and stabilizers are at least that good. Safe bet for us, because...
FDA (government) tells Hospitals/pharmacies/individuals they must toss out any expired drugs. So the drug makers don't need to worry about anyone actually determining these things can be used long past the manufacture guarantee, or worse that one of their competitors has better packaging / a more stable drug that they might choose for its long shelf life.
Still more context government F'ed over the market place by creating the perverse nonsense of employers buying you health insurance. When they created complex rules around taxable income. Think about this, does your employer offer you auto insurance as a benefit, or a homeowners/renters policy, NO! literally no employees do that, why is that? Because health insurance got setup as a way for company to pay people more without incurring additional employment or income taxes. Similar tax breaks don't exist for other kinds of insurance so you don't seem them as part of employment compensation packages. 45 years later Democrats come along and offer this terrible sob story about how so many people lose coverage because the lose or change a jobs, and government has to do something about; a problem created entirely by bad government policy in the first place.
So half the population does not really feel what they are paying for insurance because half of it is the employer contribution and they don't ever have to directly write those checks. Than insurers actually pay their medical bills so they don't feel writing those checks either. Consequence 80% of the participants in medical care don't have any clear perspective or care about what things actually cost! So nobody bothers to figure out if we are tossing good drugs into the landfill. All thanks to big government interference in the market place!
Seriously there is a STUPID simple fix to the healthcare problems we are facing! 1) Repeal Obamacare. 2) Ensure medicaid is available and adequately funded to help the people who really are below the poverty line and can't afford any kind of even catastrophic coverage. 3) Withdraw the corporate tax incentives to offer medical coverage, this will mean all the HR time associated with that is pure overhead and will discourage them from doing so. 3a) Allow individuals to deduct medical coverage from income taxes but ONLY if they pay them directly, not if they are done as payroll deduction, this make employees not want corporate heal benefits. Now this is actually government interference but its to counter decades of expectations and should have an expiration date, maybe ten years, after which you would be allow to deduct anything done as a payroll deduction as well. 4) Allow people to choose "inferior" care, relax rules that require physicians to perform certain procedures and issue a range of prescriptions, so patients can choose facilities where nurse practitioners and other less expensive resources can do these. 5) Reduce regulations on drugs and drug manufacture, not eliminate mind you just roll back the number of inspections, identifying the most expensive regulations to comply with that are offering the least benefit in terms of safety. Torts will take care of the rest.
Let the market work. This will result in enough price consciousness to actually lower prices, and creates opportunities to lower real costs. A strong individual insurance market would reemerge.
I understand that. Like I said some amount of government is required. I am not living in some fantasy land where Gult's Gulch is going to work out.
The question is, how much is to much or how little is two little. You and I just have a different idea of where that line is.
That is interesting, I was deploying Cisco Callmanger + Unity + WLC and Cisco wireless phones (wifi) in like 2003 and you could do that.
If those starry eyed clientele can't handle the responsibilities of a loan they sign up for then they can't handle the responsibilities of voting either.
Totally agree being allowed to vote should require you prove you a net tax payer, in the relevant jurisdiction.
Well there should not be many defaults, since student loans are not secured against collateral they have been made legally much harder to discharge in bankruptcy and related proceedings/actions.
I still say the problem is student loans are even a thing. College costs so much because the have a starry eyed clientele that is by and large unfamiliar with the amount of money involved. Many may have never even had a sum on the same order of magnitude their total debt will be when they finish school if they take the loan. A large portion have never even used credit before, other than borrowing $20 from mom!
Its a very abstract concept to them. They can't rationally judge if its better to pay a little less at South Harmon Institute of Technology, or go Harmon with its nicer dormitories, better food, and amazing sports complex. The market place is completely distorted by all the easy loan money running around.
If we stopped doing federal loans, and removed the bankruptcy protections, these collateralized loans would mostly disappear form the market place. Two things would happen, collage would get cheaper, and focus on core objectives. There is no point in having a fancy school students can't afford to attend. Many people would probably delay college until they had something to borrow against. I suspect this might also have a positive effect in terms of people having a better idea of what they want out of college.
Because they made an agreement! Even if we decided to make all public colleges free tomorrow it would not change the obligation of people with existing loans to pay them!
They wanted to borrow money to get something they wanted at the time and agreed to pay it back with interest. They were lent the money. They need to repay the money.
nderstand the difference between security and authenticity.
Congratulations you have proven beyond any doubt you have no idea what security means! I can now ignore you stupid prattling on Slashdot going forward.
C-I-A Confidentiality, Integrity, Authenticity. You need all three!
LE provides exactly no better authentication than self signed certs. Its worthless from a security standpoint, unless you are swapping thumbprints or something out of band to verify the certs, oh wait you could do that with self signed certs too, and with far less attack surface than running one of the LE cert bots.
I am not relying on the little lock for authenticity, I can verify the subject but I would suggest a responsible CA would do a little diligence and not actively support, which is what LE is doing, spammers and fraudsters. I can assure you 99% of internet users if they don't get some certificate error, don't carefully check the URL bar (which half the browsers don't even show anymore) character by character and they never ever ever actually look at the certificate content directly.
Sorry LE is providing a huge disservice to everyone. I'd say it ought to be shuttered, but its a free country.
No its not a messed up set of values. Helping others is good. Everyone should be welcomed and encouraged to so with their own time and resources.
When government does it, government does not help anyone, they compel others to do it. Either by surrendering their wealth via taxation or by being told what they must do with their stuff, like you have let half your parking spaces go unused most of the time in case someone handicapped shows up.
While some amount of government is needed so we can all live together in a society, its should be minimal and it should avoid making people do things as much as possible.
Don't see why it is good when private business does it, but bad when governments do it.
Because when private business do it they do it for their own reasons. Maybe its because they actually think it will maximize profits, maybe its done out of charity. The fact that it is their own reasons is the important part. A private business or individual should have to the right to do whatever they want with their property, which includes the business itself to run however they like. This is very very basic principle of freedom, the cornerstone of which is private property and the owner's right to choose!
When government mandates something like handicap accessibility they are telling someone under threat of force what they must do either personally or how they may dispose their property. The idea that someone can tell you what you must do with your time and your things is the core principle of something else, slavery!
I am not praising or berating. In the case of Amazon, its simply a business decision.
They have concluded that rather than earn a flat margin on every sale passing the shipping costs directly, or being able to offer some customers the absolute rock bottom price by excluding a larger range of more costly delivery locations, they will make more money on the whole.
One reason I pointed out was the value in universality to their clients. I am sure there are other factors as well. Maybe its easy to manage the pricing model, checkout and billing processes with few inputs and that lowers costs. I don't know.
I don't think for a second its done out of some misguided sense of altruism. They do it because they think this will make them the most money, maybe its even a long term strategy to drive out competitors as many suggest. One thing is sure, nobody is forcing Amazon to offer anyone access to Prime.
Handicapped services on the other hand are almost always done at some sort of mandate. Which makes the situation completely different.
The 'average' cost of shipping is baked into the price. Obviously it costs someone be it Amazon or possible the parcel service if Amazon has negotiated some kind of flat rate, to deliver items to harder to reach places.
UPS and FexEx deliver to my home out in the county because they know in aggregate the business is more valuable when they can say to senders we can pretty much deliver anything anywhere. There is simply know way though that it isn't cheaper to deliver locations one of the 'cities' near by. These are places right off the interstates, and they can probably do a lot more delivery's per mile on the smaller trucks they bring to the curb, where the addresses are not split up by acres of farmland or forest.
Amazon has it worked out, they make $X margin deriving to Bob in town, they loose $Y margin delivering to me, X-Y=$W which is still positive and around the margin they seek over all. So yes in effect people in denser areas are probably subsidizing people in less dense areas. Now the question for Amazon is that a positive net effect for their business? Its not a simple as being able to charge the lowest rate for product + delivery.
A prime user might be annoyed if when they go to order a birthday gift for a friend they are suddenly confronted with not being able to deliver to that location, or asked to pay an extra fee. Universality probably adds to the perception of value. I am sure there are also other considerations.
That isn't the reality most places though. You have to be much much more remote to be that 'closed' of a system. There are some places like that, probably in Alaska and some others out west on the Continental US.
My experience with rural life is Appalachia. Many years ago we still had general stores I am talking the late 90's here. Actually we still do but they are shells of their former selves where they do exist. You could ask the proprietor to order just about anything you need and they had a supplier who could get it for you.
Than two things happened. E-Commerce and the massive expansion of Walmart. That pretty much left the general stores, and local hardware stores, independent lumber yards etc, stocking convince items and things people tend to suddenly need a lot of in hurry like wall studs.
There was no way the little mom and pops could staff up with people actually capable of contacting suppliers and placing special orders etc. That actually tended to require some thinking and intelligence and working with the custom. Well I can get you those 15 widgets or I can order a case of 25 for about the same price. Maybe you offer the customer the 25, for just a little more to see if they want them. Maybe you make a judgement call you can order the case and sell the other 10 and give the guy a beak. Point is you can't just stick some local teenage behind the counter to do that with no supervision. So they quit doing that stuff, and laid people off.
So for a time if Walmart did not have it, you got in the car and drove a couple hours to the nearest city. That might be a place like Charleston, Beckly, Hunting, Lexington, Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, etc. It took time but it was never really like you could not put your hands on stuff you needed.
The next cycle was gas go super expense; that posed a real problem, but by then Amazon and others various free shipping schemes were a thing.
Now gas is cheap again. So that will get people thru the next cycle.
I don't need a third party CA to have an encrypted connection. If my interest is only in ensuring preventing eavesdropping by parties not associated with me or the remote, we can do any number of things; self signed certs being the most obvious.
That situation is rare. Usually anything conversation that requires privacy also requires authenticity. If I am telling secrets I need to know and trust the recipient or at least know the recipient has some interest in keeping my secrets. An eCommerce site as rule wants to protect my CC number because they might loose the ability to process cards if they fail to do so, or lose business in general.
If I don't know that site is real though because some horse shit CA like Let'sEncrpt is happy to issue a cert for ExamplAutoparts.com when ExampleAutoparts.com is a major e-tailer, and some asshole can clone the site and host it at ExamplAutoparts.com that sucks. With DV certs and especially with fully robotic signing like LE does that is possible. Actually they are know to have issued thousands of paypal typo squats. At least with EV certs some validation that you are a sort of legitimate operator with at least a real address and phone number means I have someone to sue.
Than lets consider that LE does not even really do DV in most cases, they only check you control the server.... Which is more likely to be compromised, A third party DNS provider or any given wanna be admins VPS server somewhere.... An attacker could rather quietly do the needful to obtain an LE certificate from a compromised site and remove all the evidence before anyone notices. That is at least a little harder with the DV that more traditional CAs usually do.
F***K LE and the horse they road in on.
Mark is about as lefty as they come. He is arguing for UBS from heaves sake.
Now cynically I think this is about enriching himself. Force the middle calls tax payer to hand even more money to poor so they can misuse it, and spend it on Mark's crappy website.
please cite one example of a 'dirty trick' by Project Veritas.
You mean the misrepresented themselves just enough to get the left to run at the mouth?
I assume you are being sarcastic.
I personally have big problems with LE and what they are doing, but that is for another discussion.
LE isn't the first CA to handout free DV certs, they are the first to have the right backers to make the effort happen and showed up at the right time in the wake of the Snowden revelations. They are enjoying some success (for now).
The thing is most people have no idea what EV vs DV means, if they don't get an error they are perfectly happy, some are still looking for the "little lock" in the corner. For most organizations there is no value proposition in something better than an LE cert. So you are probably right the bottom is about to fall out of the "certificate market".
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
bullshit its been grammatical norm to use 'he' when the gender is unknown for centuries. There is no question of accuracy its a question of knowing the definition. 'They' is usually plural and is therefore just as ambiguous although in a different when you start using it to possibly refer to individuals.
English does not have a lot of hard and fast rules. There is no official governing body. Use 'they' if you want but don't force you special snowflake bullshit on the rest of us and don't lie about it being somehow more correct. The fact is its no more and no less correct, because there is no correct. There is only did you recipient understand your message correctly and with minimal processing effort.
No but only because their memory are so sort they don't remember the last time the media collectively conspired to discredit the POTUS. They are all to busy now getting worked up over second hand accounts of e-mails provided by anonymous sources.
"it's why you don't use Word"
No its why you don't use doc/docx as a storage format. Word is probably the best word processor out there when it comes to document production (provided you don't require strict type setting or page layout, where you would use tools like Tex and Quark depending on the objectives).
What you probably should do is write most of your documents/reports/letters/etc in Word as its probably the fastest easiest way to compose something that looks nice enough.
When you have something that is ready to call a final draft, you save it in a format that will include all the fonts and specify an exact layout like postscript/pdf, either by exporting or 'printing to it.' That way you get an unchanging document in a widely understood format for archive/distribution.
Why are you allowing the sender to dictate what font you read e-mails in?
The problem with that is people only look at the summaries than. How often do people read the linked articles here. Its hard to summarize and article that does not exist though. You have to do the research sometime.
The real problem is the media companies are their own worst enemy. I am not sure what the answer is, but the problem is the fist news organization to do the needful and fully paywall will die. People will flock to the guys that are still 'free' and they will get all the readership. They might survive on ad revenues for a while long since they will be getting greater page views.
The guys that pay wall will see the revenue dry up. Only when the competition is gone will the free guys close the barn door and paywall. At which point some new organization can probably enter the market. As far as the current crop of big news organizations go, the reality is probably "There can be only one" survivor of the transition away from free online content.
"They should be paid for it"
Wrong they should be paid for it if there is a market for it. If nobody wants a paper, than they should NOT be paid for it. If they don't want their content harvested they should put it behind a pay wall or not put it online at all. If the paywall means Google does not index them and put them near the top of the search ratings to friggin bad.
Ultimately Google will be hurt if they don't index the content and return the results people want. On the other hand maybe it will turn out the people don't care about reporting in the form of long form articles if that is the case the newspapers loose.
I would wager Google and Facebook have a bigger problem if they don't have those content sources than the papers have. If people want news they know where to look! Everyone has heard of the WaPo, Times, WJS, and their local Tribute, etc. If they can't get their news online or can't see any more than the headline without crossing the pay wall they will come crawling back most likely.
Arguably, the newspapers are more monopolies than the tech companies. If you want major newspaper that covers Washington, and national news you have the WaPO to choose from, the NYT isn't really a substitute.
On the other hand if you don't like Google, there is Bing, and its an almost perfectly like substitute. If you don't like facebook there are a number of other conversation platforms like Disqus. While not perfect replacements they are social media alternatives.